[PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: usb: Document ST UCPD
Marek Vasut
marex at nabladev.com
Fri Aug 28 09:33:53 PDT 2026
On 8/26/26 3:24 PM, Fabrice Gasnier wrote:
Hello Fabrice,
>>> I've sent a series for the complete case. Please check and review here:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/20260821-ucpd-host-fusb340-v7-2-rfc-
>>> v1-0-c5e27cbc0795 at foss.st.com/
>>
>> What is the difference between this driver and the ^ driver ?
>>
>
> Hello Marek,
>
> That includes the TCCP I2C driver (and an example on ST boards).
>
>> Why is this driver not covering "the complete case" , what is missing
>> here and not missing there ?
>
> I intended to show a complete case, e.g. UCPD controller driver and
> external TCPP I2C protection chip driver. The TCPP is a companion,
> complementary, e.g. provider/consumer relationship.
>
> You've pointed some "horribleness" there. I guess you talk about the
> straight forward approach e.g. EXPORT_SYMBOL() macros. That's an
> on-going work, a prototype. I could have sent as an RFC.
Yes please.
> I wanted to be transparent, so the correct level of APIs gets used.
>
> You propose to turn the TCPP into a GPIO chip ?
I think yes, it is after all four flip switches on I2C.
> That seems smart, at least for the CC lines switches.
> What about Vbus and Vconn, it could also fit regulator API ?
It would, but, aren't those also flip switches ?
It seems to me, that TCPP02/03 can enable/disable Vconn on CC1/CC2 (that
sound like two GPIOs), enable/disable gate driver (GPIO?) and
enable/disable gate source (GPIO?) .
> There are various functions, the bindings should be extensible enough
> for later use of additional functions. I'm thinking of:
> - Over-current events for Vbus & Vconn
> Could be represented as interrupt controller ?
> Or could benefit from a regulator notifier (if used) ?
> - Vbus sensing
Could extcon cover those ?
> My point is that, that can impact the dt-bindings or functionality.
> Sending UCPD driver only, without the TCCP binding & driver, I find it
> is a bit hard to review or test at my end without having a more complete
> view.
>
> I'm not sure which way you'd like to proceed ?
I am wondering whether maybe we should slow down a bit, get USB sorted
out and upstream first, and focus on UCPD/TCPP as the second step (not
in parallel to USB) ?
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list